Saturday, February 6, 2016

More Comments from Readers – Part II

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:Comment
#1: “You’ll love this. I read that someone said, ‘I am convinced that the reference to a north sea and a south sea is
devoid of any concrete geographical content.
All specific references or allusions to Book of Mormon seas are only to
east and west seas. Any geography that
tries to accommodate a north and south sea, I think, is doomed to fail. But we
cannot dismiss the reference to these seas out of hand. If they are metaphorical, what was the
metaphor?’ How about that?” Sanderson W.
(Clark, p 65)Response:
This was written by John E. Clark (The
Book of Mormon and Archaeology, New World Archaeological Foundation, BYU,
2004). I think Clark would have some difficulty with Helaman, who wrote about
the north and south seas, and used them not as a metaphor, but as a directional
boundary to show the extension of the Nephite expansion as they filled up the
Land of Promise in 46 B.C. (Helaman 3:8). Comment
#2: “Sorenson isn’t the only one that
claims the directions of the Book of Mormon are wrong. A writer named Hauck
also says the directions of Mesoamerica are correct” Klayton G.

Response:
F. Richard Hauck (Deciphering the
Geography of the Book of Mormon, 1988), was one of the early Mesoamerican
Theorists who came along after Sorenson, and his book,because it departed from
Sorenson’s model to some degree, was panned by FARMS and BYU writers. He wrote
on p 31: “This analysis demonstrates that
the "greater" land northward was actually northwest of the
"greater" land southward and therefore the land southward was
southeast of the homeland of the Jaredite people. Eastward, then, in the Book of Momon context,
meant northeast. Had westward been used,
it would have signified the southwestern quadrant." (Hauck, p 31). Actually,
Hauck can use northeast and southwest, but his alignment, like Sorenson’s is
almost 90º off from true compass directions, making his northeast really east,
and southwest really west. The point is, Nephi said he gloried in plainness (2
Nephi 33:6) and that the Lord speaks to men according to their language unto
their understanding (2 Nephi 31:3).
Hauck's explanation seems so convoluted that it hardly makes sense,
however, when compared with the scriptures, shows that it is only wishful
thinking on his part to justify his Mesoamerican model which is skewed about
90º off the directional terms used in the scriptures. As an example, in describing the land of
promise, we find Mormon describing the land north of Zarahemla which the Nephites
controlled: "On the north, even until they came to the land which they
called Bountiful" (Alma 22:29), and "That thereby they should have no
more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward"
(Alma 22:33). It seems to me that on the
north is quite plain. Everyone knows
what "on the north" should mean.
It cannot be justified, no matter how hard Hauck and others try, to
place the land "on the north" into an area to the west, or east, or
south! Though it is understandable that they do so because that is how the
Mesoamerica landmass runs.Comment
#3: “I wonder if you have any idea of how many things your “revered” Joseph
Smith did that were illegal. As an example, take the time when he was mayor of
Nauvoo when he participated in the destruction of the newly established
opposition newspaper in Nauvoo. Even B.H. Roberts conceded that it was illegal
for him to do so” Maryann R.Response:
Well, in this particular case, B.H. Roberts was wrong. There was a legal
basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844. The amendment to the United
States Constitution that extended the guarantee of freedom of the press to
protect against the actions of city and state governments was not adopted until
1868, and it was not enforced as a matter of federal law until 1931. (See
Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” Utah Law
Review 9, 1965, p862). We need to learn to judge the actions of our
predecessors on the basis of the laws and commandments and circumstances of
their day, not ours. And Joseph Smith is still revered, especially by me.Comment
#4: “I thought it was interesting that
Hugh Nibley called the Book of Mormon writers being stubborn and not mentioning
other people than the “subjects of their history.” Doesn’t that open the door
to a better understanding of the possibility of other people in the promised
land?” Margaret V.

Response:
Nibley’s exact comment was: “Though these people (referring to the Mulekites)
play an important role once they enter the sphere of Nephite history, their
whole past is summed up in but three verses. (Omni 15-17) That shows us how
closely the editors of the Book of Mormon stick to the business at hand,
shunning any kind of digression and stubbornly refusing to tell about any
people but the announced subjects of their history” (Lehi
in the Desert, and the World of the Jaredites, Bookcraft , 1952, p 251).For
some reason, he seems to forget that the Large Plates of Nephi contained a lot
of information not found on the Small Plates. Plus, according to Helaman, there
were numerous other books written about the Nephites (Helaman 3:14:15). He also
seems to forget that the people of Zarahemla (Mulekites) had no records (Omni
1:17), and that once learning the Nephite language, the best Zarahemla could do
was recount his genealogy from memory (Ether 1:18). Even that record was
written down by the Nephites (Ether 1:18), and that the Mulekites, being nearly
twice the number of the Nephites (Mosiah
25:2), and a warring people (Omni 1:17), agreed voluntarily to join the ranks
of the Nephites and be numbered among them (Mosiah 25:13), and though larger in
number, voted to appoint Mosiah their king (Omni 1:19), and along with the
Nephites were called “the people of God” (Mosiah 25:24) from that time forward,
and referred to overall, as was Sam’s posterity, as “Nephites.” Nowhere
in scripture do we find Sam’s posterity separately named, as we do Jacob’s and
Joseph’s posterity, or even Zoram’s posterity. In addition, we know very little about
the Nephites from around 420 B.C. down to about 120 B.C., which is
about one half of their history from the time of their landing to the advent of
the Savior in the Western Hemisphere. We have one thousand twenty-one years of
recorded history on only 489 pages, and about 961 of those years on only 382 of
those pages, which is about two-and-one-half years per page. Obviously, much is
left out of those one thousand years by necessity in Mormon’s abridgement.

And
lastly, it should be kept in mind that Mormon, in abridging this 1,000 year
history, wrote “I make it according to the knowledge and the understanding
which God has given me” and that he wrote by the “whisperings of the Spirit”
and that which the Lord “worketh in me to do according to his will” (Words of
Mormon 1:7-9). It is difficult to think in terms of “stubbornly refusing” to
tell something about a people when guided by the Spirit to record those events
the Lord wanted written down and evidently, nothing more. It would seem, in this case, that Nibley is simply inaccurate.Comment
#5: “I enjoyed your article on the languages. Is it possible to give us a
reference for your comment: “Nor can
it account for the very deep and intimate associations between the Quechua and
Aymara language families.” Thanks” Carlos S.Response:
That quote is covered by Peruvian linguist Rodolfo Cerrón Palomino (b.
February 10, 1940, Huancayo Peru) who has crucially contributed to the
investigation and development of the Quechua language and has also made
outstanding contributions to the study of the Aymara, Mochica and Chipaya
languages. See his work: Lingüística Aimara,
Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos "Bartolomé de las Casas", Lima,
2000, pp 34-36. Since that, which had been his last of 17 published works, he has also published: 1) Castellano
Andino. Aspectos sociolingüísticos, pedagógicos y gramaticales (2003) Lima:
PUCP; 2) El chipaya o la lengua de los hombres del agua. (2006) Lima:
PUCP; 3) Voces del Ande. Ensayos sobre Onomástica Andina. Lima: (2008)
PUCP.